Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, as we debate, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, two of the Bali nine, are preparing to face a firing squad in Indonesia. Along with Scott Rush, the position of Chan and Sukumaran is one which has concerned me ever since I entered parliament in 2005. It was not long after I came here that they were arrested in Denpasar and charged with drug trafficking.

I hold strong views against capital punishment. I oppose the death penalty wherever it occurs. To me, capital punishment is the most cruel and inhuman response to crime. It is one that represents a violation of the most basic of all human rights; and that is life itself. As a parent, I cannot start to imagine the devastation that the Chan and Sukumaran families must be feeling right now given the Indonesian government's announcement that they will proceed with the execution of these two Australians. This decision follows their 10 years of imprisonment in Kerobokan Prison. That is 10 years on death row, 10 years of being haunted by the daily prospect of uncertainty associated with an execution.

Yes, they committed a serious crime and they deserve to be punished—but not the death penalty. As most credible reports conclude, capital punishment is not a deterrent of serious crime in today's society. If anything, the death penalty is a backward measure and most appropriately confined to history. In modern society, I believe we have adequate means to punish people for their crimes, but also, in the process, to assist them with rehabilitation. That is good for society. My opposition to capital punishment including advocacy for its abolition, is universal. It is not only when it involves Australians. I took the same view in respect of the Bali bombers, notwithstanding the fact that that was an attack primarily directed against Australian citizens that, as a matter of fact, claimed 88 Australian lives.

Over the years I have been greatly influenced by Mr Brian Deegan, an Adelaide based lawyer who lost his son Joshua in the Bali bombing. His son was 22 at the time, and was in Bali with team mates following a successful football season.

In an article published in Catholic Social Justice magazine, Mr Deegan wrote:

The vision of my son’s murderer, seated uncomfortably on the harsh concrete floor in a room bare of the conveniences he had once taken for granted, evokes little sympathy.

He continues:

But the prospect of him picking at grains of rice from his last meal is something I wish no part of. I do not wish for death of those convicted, for I oppose the death penalty under any circumstances.

For a father who lost a son in such tragic circumstances, I think those words are most telling.

It is also significant in this case that in Indonesia's immediate region most of its near neighbours have abolished the death penalty—Cambodia, the Philippines, Timor Leste, Australia, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. Until very recently Indonesia has exercised great restraint in the use of the death penalty and has extended clemency, including to foreign nationals. According to The Jakarta Post on 21 December 2014, the previous administration of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono helped at least 210 Indonesian citizens to escape the death penalty in China, Iran, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, thanks in part to Indonesia's unofficial moratorium on executions, between 2008 and 2013. The former Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa has admitted that Indonesians on death row in overseas locations had benefited from this sensible practice. Bear that in mind. This is what Indonesia did on behalf of its citizens.

Essentially, I am seeking to have the same consideration applied to the case of these two Australians as the Indonesian government sought and gained from other countries in relation to its own citizens. Anything less may, in the eyes of Australians, appear as being hypocritical. Given this, the Indonesian government should understand and appreciate that the Commonwealth of Australia, along with each of its states and territories, has long since abolished the death penalty.

Abolition represents not only the legal position but also the cultural position of this country. In fact, Australia is one of 130 nations that have abolished capital punishment, a trend that many countries around the world are also showing leadership in through their advocacy of human rights.

I strongly align myself with the views of the then Chief Judge of the South African Constitution Court, Ismail Mohamed said:

The death penalty sanctions the deliberate annihilation of life. … It is the last, the most devastating and the most irreversible recourse of the criminal law, involving as it necessarily does, the planned and calculated termination of life itself; the destruction of the greatest and most precious gift which is bestowed on all humankind.

Having met Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran in 2011 in Kerobokan Prison, along with Scott Rush and others, I would like to indicate the nature of the people I saw there. With respect to Andrew Chan, he was part of the way through his theology degree, which he has now completed. He is clearly a devout Christian, and has been providing pastoral services to inmates. The governor of the prison praised his efforts. Myuran Sukumaran was undertaking a fine arts degree and had become an accomplished artist. As a matter of fact, through colleagues of mine, I am aware that the international arts fraternity is preparing to exhibit many of his works. This has all been the product of the rehabilitation system at Kerobokan Prison. That is something I would have thought the Indonesian authorities should have been very proud of. Not only have both men shown genuine remorse for their crime, they have become valued members of the Kerobokan community and are providing a valued role with respect to other prisoners. I encourage the government of Indonesia to take that into account.

The other matter is the fact that the arrest of the Bali Nine back in 2005, and the subsequent proceedings in their trials, all came about initially from an Australian Federal Police investigation and the fact that the Australian Federal Police shared detailed criminal intelligence information with their Indonesian counterparts. Rightly so—we want to have the highest level of cooperation when it comes to law enforcement; but if the Indonesian government maintains its position in relation to the death penalty in this regard, it will make it very difficult for our law enforcement agencies to cooperate with Indonesian law enforcement agencies—and with other law enforcement agencies whose countries have the death penalty—particularly in relation to crimes that may attract capital punishment.

In concluding, I would strongly encourage the Indonesian government to give consideration to the circumstances of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, taking into account their rehabilitation and also the suffering they and their families have already experienced. I associate myself fully with the comments of both the foreign minister and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and encourage the Indonesian government to review its position. (Time expired)

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why is it that blank bullets are distributed to nine of the 12 members of the Indonesian firing squad, leaving each member of the squad with the hope that it was not their bullet that exploded the heart of the condemned person tied to a stake? It is because it is contrary to our shared human value of respect for human life for the state to plan and calculate the termination of life, regardless of the nature of the crime or the nationality of the perpetrator.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this issue of the death penalty at this critical time for two Australians, and for many others, on death row in Indonesia. I thank the foreign minister and the shadow foreign minister for their eloquent and heartfelt statements and I acknowledge the extensive efforts of the government, the opposition and other parties to advocate for Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan. We understand their executions are imminent. The orders to transfer them to their place of execution are already at Kerobokan prison. This is a critical time and opportunity for Australians to speak out about this injustice and to join the strong campaign by community organisations like Mercy, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; Australian bishops and imams; and many, many Australian citizens.

Just over a week ago I attended the concert for Mercy, in Martin Place, Sydney. I thank the organisers including Ben Quilty, Brigid Delaney and Matt Goldberg, and the wonderful artists who performed, introduced by David Wenham as MC, and the fantastic legal team led by Julian McMahon, who spoke to the crowd via video link. The most moving parts of the concert, apart from the music, were the letters written by Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, who were aware the concert was being held, and the plea from Myuran's grandmother to the Indonesian president not to kill her grandson.

Last week a letter endorsed by more than 110 federal members and senators from across the political spectrum was sent to the Indonesian government and parliament requesting that the death sentences be urgently reconsidered. I thank those many colleagues who indicated their endorsement of the letter and remain hopeful that we may see a reversal of the Indonesian decision to execute these young men. As one of the legal team said in an interview last week, 'Where there's life, there's hope.'

The letter from MPs did not seek to minimise the serious nature of Sukuraman's and Chan's crime of drug trafficking, given the damaging effects of illicit drugs on our societies. We expressed the view that Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan should be punished for their crime, and that we have the highest respect for Indonesia's sovereignty and political independence, and for the integrity of its judicial system.

We noted that in a case brought by Indonesian citizen Edith Yunita Sianturi, Scott Rush and others, in 2007, in the Indonesian Constitutional Court, the validity of the death penalty was upheld by a majority of 6 to 3, yet the majority judges accepted, on the extensive evidence before them, that the death penalty was not a deterrent any more than life or other heavy term of imprisonment. The majority judges recommended that the death penalty should no longer be the primary form of punishment for serious offences in Indonesia and that it should be able to be imposed with a prohibition or grace period of 10 years, so that 'if the prisoner shows good behaviour, it can be amended to a lifelong sentence or imprisonment for 20 years'.

Mr Chan and Mr Sukumaran have now been imprisoned for more than 10 years. They have demonstrated genuine remorse and have become model prisoners, working constructively at Kerobokan not only on their own rehabilitation and reform, but also for that of other prisoners. By reason of their good behaviour, demonstrated rehabilitation and education of other prisoners, both Mr Chan and Mr Sukumaran would appear to come within the scope of the Constitutional Court's sensible and humane recommendation.

As noted in the letter by more than 110 Australian MPs, it is significant that both Mr Chan and Mr Sukumaran were only apprehended in Bali as a result of information provided by the Australian Federal Police to their Indonesian counterparts in relation to their presence in Bali with drugs obtained in Indonesia, but intended for sale and use in Australia. The impact of their crime, serious as it was, was intended for Australia, not Indonesia.

Over many years now the Indonesian police and the AFP have exchanged intelligence and engaged with each other to address international crime and terrorism. It is certainly not in the interest of either country for cooperation between our police forces to be constrained, yet constraints are inevitable if cooperation puts people at risk of execution.

The MPs' letter also noted that the international trend—including for the most serious crimes of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity—is overwhelmingly away from capital punishment and towards the imposition of lengthy prison sentences for serious crimes, through which prisoners can reflect on their mistakes and endeavour to atone for them through good behaviour, rehabilitation and community service. The death penalty admits no possibility of redemption, or of rehabilitation.

Australians will recall the hanging of the young Melbourne man Van Tuong Nguyen on 2 December 2005, in Singapore. Van had admitted carrying drugs in order to help his twin brother pay off debts. Van admitted guilt at the first opportunity, showed great remorse, and he fully cooperated with police. Just before he died, his lawyer Lex Lasry said: 'He is completely rehabilitated, completely reformed, completely focused on doing what is good, and now they are going to kill him'. Could anyone argue honestly that this execution achieved any useful purpose for society? Of course not, and nor would the executions of Myuran and Andrew, who are similarly rehabilitated and focused on doing good for others, achieve any useful purpose.

I acknowledge that Indonesia takes offences involving drugs very seriously and that it wishes, understandably, to ensure that a strong message is sent to the community that dealing in drugs will not be tolerated. I would simply say that it is possible to be tough on crime and drugs without imposing the death penalty, which is itself a fundamental violation of the right to life. The right to life is enshrined within the Indonesian constitution, and has been honoured by Indonesia in its manifest efforts to help those many Indonesian citizens facing execution in other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Iran and Singapore, and in the restraint shown by Indonesia in its application of the death penalty over recent years.

The application of the death penalty, which, in the case of Andrew and Myuran would come after they have spent 10 years on death row in an endless churn of dread, hope and uncertainty, is the practice of torture, as noted by renowned antideath penalty campaigner and author of Dead Man Walking and The Death of Innocents, Sister Helen Prejean, who observed:

… by the time people I have been with finally climb into the chair to be killed, they have died a thousand times already because of their anticipation of the final horror.

We must also recognise that the death penalty is almost always political and commonly applied on the basis of discriminatory considerations rather than the facts of individual cases. In the US, for instance, African Americans represent 42 per cent of the inmates on death row but only 12 per cent of the nation's population. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the death penalty system:

… is applied in an unfair and unjust manner against people, largely dependent on how much money they have, the skill of their attorneys, the race of the victim and where the crime took place. People of color are far more likely to be executed than white people, especially if the victim is white.

Former Indonesian President Yudhoyono instituted a moratorium on the death penalty in Indonesia, following the public outcry over a series of televised beheadings of Indonesian female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia and a change of mood in Indonesia about the death penalty and the importance of mercy. Unfortunately, as we are only too aware of in this country, politicians can also be quite adept at influencing public moods in a negative sense, and that seems to be what is currently happening in Indonesia in the context of drug-related death penalty cases. It is an appalling injustice for the flames of human life to be extinguished based on the accident of fortune that is politics.

At stake is a principle that I am glad to say is adhered to on a bipartisan basis in Australia, in this parliament—namely, that the death penalty must be opposed wherever and to whomever it is applied. In 2010, I was proud that the former Labor government, with the support of the then opposition, passed the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Act, which imported into Australian law the principles contained in the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aimed at the abolition of the death penalty. That was why I felt it was important to speak in this place in 2008 on the anniversary of the Bali bombings to express opposition to the executions of the Bali bombers that were about to take place. At the time, I quoted from a letter written on the World Day Against the Death Penalty to the then member for Werriwa, now member for Fowler, Chris Hayes. The letter was from Scott Rush, who, at the time, was on death row and whose sentence has thankfully been commuted: Scott wrote:

If the opposition—against the death penalty—is just for us Australian citizens it makes us stick out, like sore thumbs, amongst all the other nationals who have also got the death penalty. I say this because I share my cell with a Nigerian, Emmanuel, whose dignity and kindness helps comfort us on our many dark nights. So taking a consistent stand for everyone on the death penalty—that helps us here on the inside of the wall.

Of course, we are focused on the plight of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran—two young men, Australians—but our plea for their lives, our careful and principled argument for their lives, extends to a call for mercy, humanity and respect for the right to life to be shown to all those sentenced to death.

Finally, I say again to Myuran and Andrew that we recognise and value the hard work you have done in remorse and repentance, to conduct your lives with dignity and meaning and to show compassion and care for others. Our thoughts are with you and your families. (Time expired)

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be able to talk on the motion as moved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I acknowledge her enormous efforts in her capacity as Australia's foreign minister to do everything she can and to spearhead the government's response to doing all we can to stop the execution of Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan. All members of the government, and I think we are joined here by all members of the parliament, understand that this is a desperately difficult time for those two men and also for their families and friends. I personally feel very sorry for the individuals and their family and friends. Their predicament is a very sad illustration of what can ultimately happen to those who get caught up in international crime.

The government is opposed to the death penalty not only for Australian citizens but for all people of the world. We do not believe in the death penalty. I personally find it abhorrent, and we do all we can to assist, if Australians find themselves in these circumstances.

In the case of Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan, the efforts of the Australian government, supported by the opposition, have been extensive. We are doing everything we can, and as the Prime Minister has said, we will leave absolutely no stone unturned in our efforts to stop these executions from occurring. A lot of that effort will be visible to the public; some of it will not. But I think people should feel very comfortable that we are doing absolutely everything that we can.

The government continues to make representations at the highest levels. The Prime Minister has made representations. The foreign minister has made representations. The Attorney-General has made representations. I have made representations. The vast majority of members of this parliament have made representations.

There has been a lot of commentary about the role of the Australian Federal Police, the agency for which I have ministerial responsibility, in the prosecution of Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan. I have been asked about this publicly and I have said—and I will not change that here today—that I do not want to get into a long dissertation about the role of the AFP, because now is not the time for that. Now is the time for us to focus all of our available efforts in doing everything we can to stop these executions from occurring.

I want to put a little on the record, because I think it is important that some of the assertions that are out there about the role of the Australian Federal Police are not borne out by the evidence. Firstly, it is vitally important that the AFP cooperate with our partners internationally. We need to do that to keep us safe from terrorism. We need to do that to keep us safe from serious and organised crime and we need to do that to keep us safe from other criminal activity. Australia is in a region where the death penalty is imposed by many of the partners that we cooperate with, but the high level of cooperation between us and countries that have the death penalty must continue. It is of great benefit to Australia as a nation and it does an enormous amount to keep us safe.

We have a very high level of cooperation with Indonesia, and Indonesia is a key law enforcement partner for us. As I said, I do not want to go any further than that but I urge people not to make absolutest statements about the role of the Australian Federal Police. We want to focus on doing everything we can to make sure these executions do not occur.

I also want to note that the Federal Court has looked at the role of the Australian Federal Police in relation to this matter and they have concluded that they AFP met all its legal obligations when it disclosed information to the Indonesian authorities about the arrest of the Bali Nine.

I cannot stress enough how critical our cooperation is with Indonesia. That cooperation needs to continue and it will continue to keep Australians safe. It is also cooperation that has been supported by both sides of government.

It is always the case that when Australians commit crimes overseas they will be subject to the legal systems of those countries. Absolutely nothing good comes of the illicit drug trade.

That is all I will say about those matters. Obviously, there will be further community debate about that, but it is very important at the moment that we do not distract ourselves by doing something that will impact on our efforts to assist Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan. We will do everything we can to impress on the Indonesian authorities at every level that Australians stand opposed to this punishment being carried out. We understand that these two men have done the wrong thing. We understand that they deserve to be punished. We do not support the death penalty.

I would urge the Indonesians to continue to consider our heartfelt appeals for clemency from the vast majority of people in this parliament and probably the vast majority of people in Australia.

I have written to my Indonesian counterpart and I have made those points. Other ministers will continue to do all we can to stop these executions from occurring. We hope over time that those efforts might bear fruit. Clearly, it is a very difficult situation. The Australian government will continue to do all that we can to assist.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great sadness I rise to endorse the motion that has been moved by the foreign minister and seconded by the shadow foreign minister. I want to start by saying that I have the most profound respect for Indonesia. I certainly do not think that we want to see this debate as one where Australia is preaching to Indonesia. This is a country that Australia has been critically involved in since its very inception. Australia has a long history of supporting the Indonesians, firstly, in their quest for freedom in the postcolonial period. It is a nation of over 250 million people, and it has achieved a very stable democracy in some very challenging circumstances. It is truly amazing what has been achieved in Indonesia since it gained independence in the postwar period. So I think we all want to stress that we admire Indonesia and the steps that it has taken to raise its community, many of whom were in poverty, and to provide opportunities for its community. We understand the need for very tough laws on drugs as Indonesia seeks to create a stable environment for the community into the 21st century.

We want to have an even stronger relationship with Indonesia. I personally am very much committed to increasing the teaching of the Indonesian language in our primary and secondary schools and universities. I want those bonds to be stronger. We are urging President Joko Widodo to really take the importance of this relationship into central focus when making a final decision on the fate of the two young Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.

In my constituency, across Western Australia and, indeed, across Australia, people are really deeply concerned about the fate of these young men. They have seen in great detail their transformation in the prison in Bali. They see that these are young people who—through, one might argue, the enlightenment of the Indonesian prison system—have been enabled to grow beyond the state they were in when they were apprehended for their crimes in association with drug smuggling. These are young men who have been able to go through a period of considerable rehabilitation and moral restoration during their time within that prison. We want to acknowledge that has happened.

We want the Indonesian government to show the compassion and enlightenment that we know that they are capable of and to free these young Australians. In that, they can not only spare these men and their families great grief and trauma but also really do something very positive to cement the bonds of friendship between Australia and Indonesia. Regardless of what happens, we are going to be close neighbours. But I and many Australians want that relationship to be an even more profoundly connected relationship where we bring our cultures together. If the Indonesian government and President Widodo were able to see their way clear to this act of mercy—this act of clemency—it would be greatly appreciated by the Australian community and, I believe, would go a long way to taking our connection and our intercommunity relations with Indonesia to a higher plane. I believe that can only be to our mutual benefit. I want to acknowledge the good work that has been done by so many people pressing the case for Andrew and Myuran. I want to add my voice to that. This is not hectoring, or a criticism of Indonesia; it is a plea to a magnificent and successful country to take this additional step to ensure that relations between our communities remain strong.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the motion, as moved by the Foreign Minister, seeking a stay of execution and a reconsideration of the clemency bids for Mr Chan and Mr Sukumaran. I also wish to acknowledge the ceaseless efforts of the foreign minister, the Prime Minister and members and senators on both sides of the house to secure this clemency—to secure this mercy.

I am going to speak in Bahasa Indonesia and I will then provide a translation. To President Joko Widodo, I say: mohon minta belas kasihan. Andrew Chan dan Myuran Sukumaran melakukan tindakan kriminal yang sangat berat. Tetapi, mereka sudah berubah dan menjadi orang yang membantu sesamanya. Sebagaimana halnya Indonesia bekerja keras untuk meminta belas kasihan bagi para warga negara Indonesia untuk tidak dihukum mati, Australia juga mohon minta belas kasihan untuk warga negaranya. Saya mohon Presiden memberi belas kasihan. Terima kasih.

The translation in English is: please give mercy. Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran committed a serious crime. But they have changed and have become people who are helping others. As Indonesia works hard to seek mercy for its citizens not to be executed, Australia also seeks mercy for its citizens. I ask of the President: please give mercy. Thank you.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For three years as a child I lived in Indonesia—a year in Jakarta and two years in Banda Aceh. It had a profound influence on me as a little boy seeing a country with a great sense of generosity. I remember very warmly the celebrations at the end of Ramadan; the willingness of people in homes in northern Sumatra to welcome us in and offer us a drink—often heavily sweetened coffee which would set my little brother and I off for the next few hours—and to give to us, even though they had so little. I have also seen what it is like on the inside of a jail—not Kerobokan Prison but other prisons in Indonesia. I am aware of the hardships there and that is also relevant in thinking about the role that Andrew Chan has played since his imprisonment.

I have seen, too, the impact of drugs and I understand why, for Indonesia, cracking down on drug smuggling is an important issue. Drugs can ruin young lives. Just as those who traffic drugs tend to be poor and underprivileged, those who use them tend to be poor and underprivileged. And so Indonesia's work to reduce the scourge of drugs in its community has my full support.

But to do so, Indonesia need not employ the death penalty. My plea to President Jokowi is that just as Indonesia has reached out to other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, to urge clemency for its own citizens, so, do we now—your Australian brothers and sisters—reach out to you on behalf of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran . These are young men—Andrew born in 1984 and Myuran born in 1981. Both committed their crimes nearly a decade ago when they were in their early 20s.

In jail, as other speakers have noted, they have been reformed prisoners. Too often, prison is a place where rehabilitation does not take place, but in the case of these two young men it does indeed seem to have occurred. In the atmosphere of hardship that I referred to earlier, Andrew Chan has become a lay preacher. He has reached out to those around him. He said of his conversion to Christianity:

When I got back to my cell, I said, ‘God, I asked you to set me free, not kill me.’ God spoke to me and said, ‘Andrew, I have set you free from the inside out, I have given you life!’ From that moment on I haven’t stopped worshipping Him. I had never sung before, never led worship, until Jesus set me free.

Myuran Sukumaran has become an artist. He has tapped into his creative self and, working with Ben Quilty, has begun to attain something of a reputation for his creative works. They are too young men whose contribution to Indonesia in the years to come could be significant in making a difficult environment a little more bearable for those around them. In his book on the death penalty, Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson, a United States academic and lawyer, makes the point that all of us are better than the worst thing we have ever done. In the case of Andrew and Myuran this must be true, and their subsequent acts have shown that.

The use of the death penalty is morally wrong and economically ineffective. Australia abolished the death penalty nearly half a century ago, with the last person put to death being Ronald Ryan, put to death by the Bolte government in 1967. So no-one under 48 in Australia has been alive when an execution has taken place here. One of the reasons that we abolished the death penalty was a moral one. We would never dream to say of somebody who had committed a sexual assault that we would punish them on the eye-for-an-eye principal; that the state would in turn commit a sexual assault upon that person. And yet in the case of murder, an eye for an eye is considered by some to be right.

It misses the fact that the justice system can be imperfect and that people on death row have frequently had their sentences overturned, as in the case of Walter McMillan, whose conviction was ultimately overturned by Bryan Stevenson. But it also understates the ability of people to change. A recent review of the literature on the deterrent effect of the death penalty carried out by John Donohue at Stanford University and Justin Wolfers at the University of Michigan has shown very clearly that in the United States there is no deterrent impact. There is no clear evidence that the existence of the death penalty or the number of people put to death reduces the homicide rate. So for these moral and economic reasons, I believe that the death penalty is wrong and should be rescinded. And in the individual cases of Chan and Sukumaran, we in this place call upon the Indonesian government to recognise the hand of friendship extended by some—like the previous speaker, who like me speaks in Bahasa, having lived for three years in Indonesia—who have a great respect for Indonesia and for Indonesians, and a personal respect for President Jokowi, and who call on him to do the right thing by exercising clemency in this case.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with sadness that I stand here today and offer my sincere thoughts and prayers to Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran—the two Australians in Bali facing execution for the crime of drug trafficking—and I commend the parliamentarians on both sides of the chamber for their support in calling for clemency. To all of those people who have spoken on this motion, I thank you for making a stand for these two men and for the more than 100 parliamentarians who signed the letter to the Indonesian ambassador seeking clemency.

On 13 February 2006, Lawrence and Rush, the first of the of the Bali Nine to face sentencing, were sentenced to life imprisonment. The following day Czugaj and Stephens were sentenced to life imprisonment. Sadly, Andrew and Myuran were sentenced to death via firing squad, the first ever death sentences imposed by the Denpasar District Court.

I want to say to the families of these two young men, Andrew and Myuran, that you have my deepest sympathy for your situation and what you have experienced over the last 10 years or so, though no words could possibly ease the pain you have been experiencing since the arrests.

Every parent in Australia who watched the truly saddening plea of Raji Sukumaran, mother of Myuran, as she read a statement in Jakarta on behalf of herself and Helen Chan, the mother of Andrew Chan, would have felt their anguish and felt horrified to see those words coming from that mother's heart:

We beg for mercy for our sons, we beg you to spare our sons’ lives, we beg you, please don’t kill our sons.

I remember the day that the Bali Nine were arrested—and Scott Rush's parents are in my electorate—because it was the day my son was born. As I see my son approaching his 10th birthday this year, a son that I could hold in my hand the day they were arrested, I see how much my son has grown and I think of the lives that these men have missed out on over the last 10 years, and the lives that their parents have missed out on. I know because of Lee and Chris Rush and the great work that they have been doing to support all of the Bali Nine, not just their son Scott.

I believe in a strong system of justice. I understand that Andrew and Myuran should be punished for the serious crime of trafficking illicit drugs. No-one in this parliament has questioned that. In Australia we take the crime of drug running very seriously, and the implementation of these crimes results in penalties, including imprisonment. We understand that.

I have sympathy for the situation in Indonesia where drugs are sadly consuming the lives of people every day and sensible governments must help their constituents; however, I note that the drugs being smuggled in this situation were intended to harm Australians, not Indonesians.

Irrespective of the crime, I unreservedly oppose the death penalty in all cases wherever it occurs in the world, whether it be terrorists in Bali, people smuggling drugs or anything in between. No crime can justify the cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state.

I support the view of Amnesty International and said when I was the co-chair of that group that:

The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights ... it violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

On 6 March 2008, it was revealed that three of the Bali Nine, Norman, Chen and Nguyen, who were issued death sentences on appeal, had their sentences reduced to life imprisonment. Thankfully, on 10 May 2011, Rush's appeal was successful in reducing his sentence from the death penalty to life imprisonment. There is still more to be done to release Scott, someone else who has changed his circumstances while in jail. I know that Lee and Chris Rush are doing all they can to help him. I ask that the Indonesian president show some compassion to implement the decision of the Indonesian Constitutional Court in the 2007 case of Edith Sianturi, Scott Rush and others, which recommended that the death penalty should no longer be the primary form of punishment in Indonesia, and that it should be imposed with a prohibition period of 10 years so that if the prisoner shows good behaviour, as Andrew and Myuran have done, it can be amended to a lifelong sentence or imprisonment for 20 years.

So I plead with the Indonesian president, new in his tenure, popularly elected—and surprised many—that now is the chance for him to show compassion and strength, especially in the light of the rehabilitation of Andrew and Myuran, the remorse they have shown during their time in prison, and the help they have given to other prisoners over the past nearly 10 years. He should recognise the advantage that saving Andrew's and Myuran's lives would present to the Indonesian system, because of the help they have given other prisoners. By observing the positive change Andrew and Myuran have made, the Indonesian government can take this opportunity to encourage other prisoners to rehabilitate and change their lives for the better.

Recent campaigns across Australia have echoed that call for mercy. I thank the Australian people for turning out for this cause. Execution is not the answer for this situation and I ask President Jokowi to reverse his decision and save the lives of Andrew and Myuran. I ask him to consider the circumstances of Andrew's and Myuran's rehabilitation particularly. Obviously their suffering is also to be considered, as is the suffering of their families. But their rehabilitation is the key element that should make him commute their sentences to an appropriate term of imprisonment. Please, Mr President, I ask you to consider this.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not relish speaking on a motion of this character, because there are the lives of two young Australians that are before us. I want to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the shadow minister for the motion that they have proposed in the House of Representatives today, noting that Chan and Sukumaran are presently imprisoned, the serious nature of their crimes, Australia's abolition of capital punishment, speaking of the genuine remorse demonstrated by both Chan and Sukumaran, their rehabilitation, and the widespread support of the Australian people for commutation of the death sentences imposed on them, and encouraging Indonesia to give consideration to their circumstances and stay their executions.

I was the lead signer of a letter signed by more than 100 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate expressing our view. This is a clear majority of members who feel this way. I had no pleasure in writing the letter, because of the circumstances, but I have been involved with Amnesty International over a long period of time, as has the speaker before me. I was a member some 40 years ago. Opposition to the death penalty and the assertion of the right to life are things that I have always been strongly committed to.

I have continued to push very strongly for the abolition of the death penalty around the world. I reminded some members of the circumstances of a meeting we had on this very issue today. When George Bush Senior first visited Australia, I endeavoured to present to him a petition on this very issue. We take it up with the United States, because we believe that capital punishment is wrong in principle. We take it up with China. We take it up with Iran. We take it up with Saudi Arabia.

I think the most interesting comments in the debate today have been those of the Minister for Foreign Affairs outlining the approach Indonesia takes to this matter when its own citizens abroad are subjected to the possibility of a death penalty. On the information provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs, I am told that something of the order of 420 Indonesian nationals have faced a death penalty abroad between 2011 and 2014. They have worked exceedingly hard to seek remission of those penalties for their citizens abroad, and I commend them for that. One hundred and seventy-three of their citizens who have faced the death penalty have been freed. The circumstances in which they were freed have often involved paying moneys—and I understand Indonesia raises the funds—to compensate families of those who may have been adversely affected by the activity of an Indonesian national. On the basis of that compensation, the remission can occur. I do not know what compensation could be paid to secure the release of Chan and Sukumaran, but it is interesting, isn't it, when you think about?

I hold no adverse brief to Indonesia. I want to work with Indonesia. I have said to members of their foreign affairs committee, whom I have met with from time to time, that I would like to work with Indonesia to secure the release of Indonesian nationals sentenced to death, because I believe, in principle, it is wrong. I would like to think that we could have a unity ticket of those of us in public life to produce that change. I continue to reiterate to Indonesia, through its ambassador and through its public officials, my willingness to work with them to save the lives of their nationals where they are at risk.

But in the cases that we are speaking of today, if you actually look at the letter that we wrote to the Indonesian ambassador, it outlines why the circumstances of Chan and Sukumaran are so different, even to those many others who face the death penalty. Indonesia has noted that if people have been held for more than 10 years and have shown good behaviour that can be taken into account. Chan and Sukumaran have been imprisoned for more than 10 years. They have demonstrated, as we say in our letter, genuine remorse. They have worked constructively to rehabilitate not only themselves but others. In that context, in the circumstances that Indonesia have said should be taken into account, in our view the President should have some regard.

As a lawyer, I am interested in these matters and I read today that there is a further appeal. I hope it may have some success—inviting the President to not have a blanket approach to these matters, but to require him to genuinely consider the circumstances of the individuals, which, it is suggested, their law requires. I certainly hope and request—and I reiterate that again—that in the time that is left he may return to this matter. It is not a matter of us wanting to berate Indonesia. It is one in which I hope we can work together, not only to save Chan and Sukumaran but to save the lives of many others who may be at risk of capital punishment.

A number of Australians were killed as a result of a terrorist act in Indonesia, and those responsible were found. When Indonesia sought to execute them, as a matter of principle, I took the view that we should seek clemency for those even though, through their conduct, they had a very adverse impact on many Australians and adversely affected the lives of many of those Australians related.

There is a need for consistency in these matters. I hope that our efforts may bear fruit. If they do not, I hope we can continue to work to try to produce change in the views of national governments around the world, including Indonesia, for the future. The world would be a far better place if we were able to achieve that.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I feel privileged to follow the Chief Government Whip. His contribution to this debate was outstanding and I think got to the core of the issue—as have the contributions of everyone who has spoken in this debate. I was in the House when the minister and the shadow minister moved the motion, and I believe that this is one issue which brings the parliament together. It is an issue that a number of members of this parliament feel passionate about.

I will start my contribution by pleading for mercy for Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, two young men who made a really silly decision, a very bad mistake—a mistake which, if they had been successful, would have led to the loss of many Australian lives. In no way does any member of this parliament sanction their act but, as the Chief Government Whip rightly pointed out, they have been in jail for 10 years and have undergone enormous rehabilitation. They are totally different men to the men who were arrested for a very stupid act that took place such a long time ago. They were men in their early twenties. They were men who did not think of the consequences of their act and did not think of the enormous suffering that the drug trade leads to. These men were caught and punished and have served considerable time in jail. These men have learnt that there is more to life than what they thought at the time of their arrest. Andrew Chan has become a pastor within the jail, helping other people. Myuran Sukumaran is also dedicated to helping other prisoners through his art and helping them to the realisation of who they are and what they are.

I am totally opposed to the death penalty in any form—not only for our Australian citizens but for anyone. To take a person's life is the ultimate denial of human rights. It has been shown that it is not a deterrent; rather, it leads to a situation where you are inflicting pain not only on that person but also on their family, as we have seen in the last few days in Australia with the mothers and the families of both Andrew and Myuran pleading for their lives and making statements. I think it takes away from us as human beings when we take the life of another person. As has been mentioned by many in this debate, an eye for an eye does not resolve the issue. What we need is to work closely with Indonesian government, and other governments throughout the world, to address the issue of drug trafficking—and to address the issue of the death penalty, for that matter.

As has been said by previous speakers, Indonesian prisoners have been held in places throughout the world where the death penalty has been imposed on them and their government has pleaded for clemency—and in many cases that has been granted. We are doing the same here for our Australian citizens. As a member of this parliament, I feel it is imperative that I stand up here and plead for the lives of these two young men. I know that members on both sides have joined together in pleading for mercy and clemency. In doing so we show no disrespect to Indonesia. We recognise their sovereignty, but we also need to put on the record that taking the lives of these two young Australians, who have been rehabilitated and who are helping to rehabilitate others—who, far from being involved in any drug trafficking in jail, have actually worked to stop it happening—would not resolve the issue. I would very much like my support for the motion by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the shadow minister put on record.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion moved in the House by the Prime Minister, as have all the members who have spoken on this motion. The Australian parliament calls on the government and the President of Indonesia to extend clemency to Sukumaran and Chan. We recognise that the crimes they have committed and were sentenced for were very grave ones—very grave indeed. But we as a nation do not believe that the state should kill people as the end of a judicial process. We do not support the death penalty. We do not condone the crimes that have been committed, but we argue that no state should take the life of its citizens as the consequence of a judicial process. Appropriate terms of imprisonment are, of course, available to the Indonesians. As the foreign minister said in her motion, that is what we recommend should be accorded to them.

Having said that, we respect the Indonesian republic. We respect the Indonesian government, we respect its president, and we respect its laws. We make this plea to them humbly, recognising that Indonesia and the Indonesian people are entitled to manage their own affairs. But the Indonesian government, for example, regularly makes a plea for clemency in respect of its citizens who have been sentenced to death in other countries—most notably, and as is well-known, in Saudi Arabia. To ask for mercy is an important, honourable and loving action; but to grant mercy is the absolute and ultimate expression of love—honourable and strong love. That is what we are asking the Indonesian president to do. We are not asking him to be weak or to back down; we are asking him as a friend, as a dear friend, not to take the lives of these men—who, as I said, have committed terrible crimes—who have sought to rehabilitate themselves. Nonetheless, what we are asking the President to do is to be strong, to be so strong that he can say, 'My love of life overwhelms, trumps, the desire for vengeance, the desire for retribution.' So we are asking the Indonesian President to show love. Some might say that these two men do not deserve it, that they do not deserve to be shown any clemency. The greatest love is that which is shown to those who least deserve it.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister for Communications, for that very eloquent contribution to the debate.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:26